David Hoffman wrote:
Now, even if you're correct that Brett doesn't have a valid
copyright (which he does) and that unspecified entities unknown own
the copyright to the article (which they don't), we still have the
same problem: FreeBSD claiming to own something they don't, and not
even attributing it to its true authors.
Derivative work may be a bit of a stretch. A failed attempt at adopting
your point of view that facts are actually copyrightable. Math books are
descriptive and thus copyrightable, though the facts contained therein
are not. The article in question is not at all descriptive. If it were,
it would be a different story. It is a 100% factual procedure.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
